Post: #26

Can't wait/am curious to see whats gonna happen when the first of the Gen Xrs (?) or millenials (I fucking HATE that name, but have to define the age group I am talking about) really start to come into political power. Wonder if that could be a political movement in and of itself, instead of getting incumbents out of power-get ALL baby boomers out of power ASAP. I know its not gonna happen anytime soon, but would be cool/interesting to see/happen (or even just contemplate). Or, will that generate become so disillusioned from politics that they'll just become more apathetic?

(09-03-2012 11:40 PM)Athlone McGinnis Wrote:  

(09-03-2012 07:57 PM)TexasMade Wrote:  Domestically shit wont change. Shit wont change for another 8-16 years when the baby boomers finally lose power. Hopefully we aren't as greedy and stupid as they are.

Bingo.

Post: #27

(09-03-2012 11:33 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  Yes, because America is best run as a corporation.

Quote:Calvin Coolidge
"The chief business of the American people is business."

Post: #28

(09-03-2012 11:37 PM)IpsaScientiaPotestasEst Wrote:  Obama, easy. First president to actually put anything into renewable energy.

Yes, he put in tons of money, most of which we will never get back. Google Solyndra.

(09-03-2012 11:37 PM)IpsaScientiaPotestasEst Wrote:  Look, I hate how the economy has been going too, and have been looking for work in DC for over 7 months while waiting tables for like 8-10$ an hour (with my BA...yes yes I know)-

Here ya go, pal. This ad's for you.

Post: #29

(09-03-2012 11:44 PM)IpsaScientiaPotestasEst Wrote:  Can't wait/am curious to see whats gonna happen when the first of the Gen Xrs (?) or millenials (I fucking HATE that name, but have to define the age group I am talking about) really start to come into political power. Wonder if that could be a political movement in and of itself, instead of getting incumbents out of power-get ALL baby boomers out of power ASAP. I know its not gonna happen anytime soon, but would be cool/interesting to see/happen (or even just contemplate). Or, will that generate become so disillusioned from politics that they'll just become more apathetic?

I can't say. I know that the younger generations have a lot of potential to do good, but we are the children of boomers and apples don't fall too far from trees. Mistakes could be made.

That being said, we've learned a lot of hard lessons as well, lessons that many boomer parents conveniently got to miss (ex: the value of a higher education...and how one can inflate it). This will make the difference.

The transition will not be the panacea that takes away all problems, but I think some good will come out of it. No generation has ever been quite like the boomer generation. None have enjoyed (and squandered) such continued prosperity and wealth, and none have ever in modern history held such a clear stranglehold on financial, political and social power. Their transition away from control will make a big difference, and I suspect it'll be good for those who, thanks to their uniquely comprehensive domination of all sectors of this society, have largely been sitting on the sidelines.

We're stuck with them for at least 15-20 years in my estimation. Only then will we see substantive positive change for those who are getting hit hardest by the recession: the young.

Until then, hold tight...

Post: #30

(09-03-2012 07:57 PM)TexasMade Wrote:  No difference in the two in my eyes except what the republicans would do in the Middle East. I like Obama's hands off approach. Romey would have us knee deep in Syria which would have us knee deep in Iran with Isreal. Who knows what Russia and China would say and Europe would pussy out.

Nailed it.

Romney would basically be Obama but with more middle east wars.

Post: #31

Obama... As already stated, no more wars, no more needless intervention.. not cuts to social spending before cuts to the military and further taxes to the top bracket, stopping the maddening income disparities between the elite and average in this country... oh well, guess I'm just a flaming leftie hah

Post: #32

Being a part of the next generation... I'm pretty sure we're fucked. I'm one of the only people I know of my age that isn't a full retard when it comes to money.

Post: #33

(09-03-2012 07:30 PM)Tuthmosis Wrote:  

(09-03-2012 07:13 PM)soup Wrote:  They should decide the election by seeing how well these two would do in a cold-approach competition.

I already had this idea. This tells me it's a good one.

Obama/Biden would win that contest. Hands down.

I'm very curious as to why you believe this. I believe you are right out of my gut instinct, but would like to read your breakdown.

Anyone check out the singularity theory. If that's the case, then it's a matter of flesh vs. metal- who'd win?

We should be trying to figure out which guy will be bring about Skynet first.

Post: #34

(09-04-2012 04:57 AM)soup Wrote:  I'm very curious as to why you believe this. I believe you are right out of my gut instinct, but would like to read your breakdown.

Romney "spergs out" whenever he's placed in a situation where he's got to deal with normal people. Paul Ryan is just a turd. I figure he's only screwed his wife, that black girl from college (maybe, but I have visions of him begging her to sexually humiliate him by having breeding parties), and maybe one girl in high school. Blowing his priest when he was an altar boy doesn't count.

Obama OTOH has had to sit through a few of those "Guess Who's Coming to Dinner" situations. You've got to be a charmer to walk a mile in his shoes. And who remembers when he called out Michael Steele as an Uncle Tom at the white house press correspondents dinner a few years ago? And Biden is an old school politician who talks shit to everyone and everything. That's step one when it comes to game.

Post: #35

Romney.
1) Obama wants the U.S. to be more of an entitlement state. I don't know about you guys, but I don't want my tax dollars to go towards allowing others to sit on their asses and not work. Obama will turn the U.S. into a welfare state.
2) Obama will raise taxes on income, corporations, capital gains, and dividends. As to the first (raising taxes on income), there is no legitimate justification for taxing higher incomes more so than lower. Don't punish a person just because he or she earns a higher income than another. As to the latter three, it will only hurt the already struggling U.S. economy.

Romney is not perfect, but he appears to be more concerned with improving the U.S. economy than Obama, who seems to be more about creating class warfare than anything else.

Post: #36

I think they both suck corporate dick.

That said, those of you who say Romney will start wars, keep in mind he is moderate. He's not a neocon, which is why the necons hate him. Romney wants to be a money president. He wants to be known as the guy who saved America and returned her back to being an economic powerhouse like she was post-WWII. He'll fail because the only way to do that is to make drastic cuts to defense AND entitlements, and the congress won't do both. We'll all just continue driving off the cliff and die together -- all for one, one for all, right America?

And for those who think Obama will keep us out of conflicts in the middle east, remember Libya in March 2011? We were firing off Tomahawk missiles like it was the fourth of July in Mississippi. Obama has used drones to kill more people (including women and children) than his predecessor.

Both Obama and Romney have done absolutely nothing for civil liberties, which is precisely the one area everyone should be concerned. Both men represent more government in your life telling you how to live.

Post: #37

(09-04-2012 01:15 PM)Roustabout Wrote:  Romney.
1) Obama wants the U.S. to be more of an entitlement state. I don't know about you guys, but I don't want my tax dollars to go towards allowing others to sit on their asses and not work. Obama will turn the U.S. into a welfare state.

Why do people repeat absolute garbage as though it is true? Where has obama said that he wants people to sit on their asses and not work while you pay for them?

Do you actually analyze any information? Or do you just watch Fox news all day, stuff your brain with stupidity and then vomit it all out at given intervals?

What absolute bullshit.

Post: #38

http://thehill.com/opinion/columnists/di...are-reform

Post: #39

That lie has been debunked over and over and over again.

As I said, if you watched anything other than Fox news and Dick Morris, you might actually get another viewpoint. It's an outright lie. The changes were requested by the state Governors including Republicans.

Try to think for yourself once in a while instead of filling your brain with right wing talking points and regurgitating them.

Quote:In fact, Obama did not waive the work requirement.

His administration in July issued a letter to state governments saying that the Department of Health and Human Services would consider requests from states to experiment with new ways to fulfill the work requirements. The letter said that in order to receive waivers to carry out the experiments, states would have to show that their plans would move more welfare recipients into jobs than existing policies.

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-...5653.story

Post: #40

Manabout - nice work. I'm not going to admit Obama is correct on this issue, but thanks for the article link. I'm still voting Romney.

You might also like this link and the companion article referenced wihttp://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444914904577619672512345362.htmlthin:
Both present an interesting, to me, discussion of "entitlements" in the U.S.

Post: #41

(09-04-2012 02:23 PM)ManAbout Wrote:  That lie has been debunked over and over and over again.

As I said, if you watched anything other than Fox news and Dick Morris, you might actually get another viewpoint. It's an outright lie. The changes were requested by the state Governors including Republicans.

Try to think for yourself once in a while instead of filling your brain with right wing talking points and regurgitating them.

I'm no fan of fox news, and you're spot on about Republicans lying about the Medicare issue, but what other news source should he use? MSNBC? CNN?

People love to shit on Fox News, but give us an alternative that is an unbiased U.S. news source.

Post: #42

(09-04-2012 02:53 PM)Smitty Wrote:  I'm no fan of fox news, and you're spot on about Republicans lying about the Medicare issue, but what other news source should he use? MSNBC? CNN?

People love to shit on Fox News, but give us an alternative that is an unbiased U.S. news source.

The Economist is good. Not a U.S. source of course, but I think that gives them an air fr objectivity about our internal affairs that you may not get from U.S. media. I find their analysis to usually be clear, and well-presented. Here is a good article on Obama's tract record.

---

Interesting article I just came across:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/20...ation.html

Quote:The libertarian Tyler Cowen, in his landmark work The Great Stagnation, makes many of the same points, claiming that the U.S. “frontier” has closed both technologically and in terms of human capital and resources. He maintains that we’ve already harvested “the low-hanging fruit” and that we now rest on a “technological plateau,” making any future economic progress difficult to achieve. Stagnation is not such a bad thing for people already established in college-campus jobs, think tanks, or powerful financial institutions. But it wipes out the hope for the new generation that they can achieve anything resembling the American Dream of their parents or even grandparents.

Inevitably, young people are delaying their leap into adulthood. Nearly a third of people between 18 and 34 have put off marriage or having a baby due to the recession, and a quarter have moved back to their parents’ homes, according to a Pew study. These decisions have helped cut the birthrate by 11 percent by 2011, while the marriage rate slumped 6.8 percent. The baby-boom echo generation could propel historically fecund America toward the kind of demographic disaster already evident in parts of Europe and Japan.

The worst effects of the “new normal” can be seen among noncollege graduates. Conservative analysts such as Charles Murray point out the deterioration of family life—as measured by illegitimacy and low marriage rates—among working-class whites; among white American women with only a high-school education, 44 percent of births are out of wedlock, up from 6 percent in 1970. With incomes dropping and higher unemployment, Murray predicts the emergence of a growing “white underclass” in the coming decade.

I think people have to come to grips with reality. The stagnation in the economy that we have seen for decades with regards to wealth expansion for the middle class is not likely to change. And there is little any elected official an do about that. The boomers had a great run and they were at the right place at the right time where ideal circumstances for prosperity converged. Our mistake may be in assuming that this period was normal and making it the standard for all future generations. Of course any presidential hopeful that went on the podium and said that would tank in the polls, even if it's hard reality...nobody wants to swallow the red pill. There may be very little to nothing that government can do to make things as prosperous for millennials as it was for boomers. The democrats can only offer deficit spending and creating more government jobs, the republicans want to lower taxes in the hope it will create jobs. It doesn't seem to me that either will have much effect. Obama's promise of green jobs was a pipe dream. Creating infrastructure jobs for the sake of doing so is a colossal waste, such as this high speed rail they are trying to build in California with federal funds. A rail that will go pretty much nowhere. The republican's reflexive solution to everything is lower taxes on the rich and corporations and magically their prosperity will trickle down to everyone(yeah fuckin right!). Corporations have already been back to profitability since 2008. If they aren't hiring by now it's because they've adapted by squeezing more productivity out of each worker. There is not enough demand in the economy to spawn hiring in any great numbers. Boomers are not retiring fast enough to make room for younger employees, yet when they do retire the young generation, already saddled with college debt will be supporting them.

As a realist I don't expect either president to be able to "create jobs" in any significant number. My expectations are pretty low at this point and all I am looking for right now is the one will make things somewhat less painful for the average person in this economy. To me that person is Barack Obama. I know people like Romney couldn't give a shit less about whether people are thrown off their insurance provider for pre-existing conditions. At least on things like that, Obama's heart is in the right place.

Edit --

Another issue to throw out there. I wonder how much the economy has played a role in the rise of the game movement? The game movement being a reaction itself to the increasing difficulty men have found in dating, sexing and finding relationships with women, particularly from the mid 2000s forward. Is the economic squeeze causing women to become more hypergamous than ever? For a guy that's in the 1%, it must be a gold mine out there right now because I know so many guys that are struggling to make ends meet.

Post: #43

Infrastructure is a solid investment but the Government needs to build roads, bridges, damns and rail not re-pave roads with tar and had people shovels to dig some dirt. Infrastructure enables economic expansion and America like Canada like-wise is in a defecit. America needs $2.2 Trillion which is pennies in comparison to the fluff of monopoly money we gave to Wall Street which does nothing for the real economy other then generate "profits" on a computer screen.

The fact of the matter is and what your getting at Speakeasy is that the economy is overinfalted and does not represent anything tangible or real. 65% of the American ecnomy is consumer-based, with large chunks bogged up in "finance" and the Military. This is why 2008 sucked so bad because the only fuel for consumers... debt.. was tapped dry.

The economy ever since has been trying to correct itself and contract but the Govt can't let that happen because as tough as it is (debts harder to pay, unemployment skyrockets as labor is re-organized naturally) it is generally quicker and less painful then letting things continue on the current path which would lead to a cataclysmic economic explosion down the road.

To give you an idea of how warped things are: Agricultre... America is one of the leading farming countries world wide, tangible production of crops, cereal, and foods yet it only makes up 1.2% of GDP (????). America literally feeds half the world being the dominant grain and cereal exporter globally and yet that is less then 2% of the economy. This has not changed much as America has been a leader in Agriculture for nearly 50 years, but back then the scope of it whiten the economy was more around 23%. Manufacturing only around 14% these are real things. Stuff like Finance and Miltary expentatures are black pitts in the economy and represent no real production or wealth generation. They just inflate charts and figures.

There are no more jobs to be "created" the economy can't support it as the boomers grey out the economy will contract. It has tried to contract for nearly 20+ years but polticitans keep on aiding new bubbles to re-inflate the mess even more. By creating Govt jobs and issuing more Govt debt.

Places like China lead ahead because they re-invest profits into tangible goods and large sectors of their economy still produce stuff that actually has value. China has its own problems and is far from perfect but just adding that to a contrast of the USA.

Politicians will try and sell you that they can get to the "good days" of Clinton or Bush but those days are long gone. They were just bubbles and nothing more. Wages have no increased nor has actual personal wealth.. just debt. The good old days were before the boomers, their parents whom created the single greatest generation of wealth (real wealth) generation in human history. Globally not just the USA during the time after WWII was exponentially growing at such and unseen rate and this was all real wealth due to the limits of credit creation which was able to take place due to Bretton Woods and other measures.

The great contraction of the economy will be the issue that our generation has to tackle,and the test is if we go down the typical paths of lunacy towards totalitarianism, and extremism - or if we break the mold and actually find a viable solution.

Anytime a politicians says he is going to "create jobs" he is full of shit and is selling snake oil. They only way jobs can be "created" right now is via debt. Only dievent sectors of the economy are growing rapidly right now (jails, debt collection, wall mart) these do not create prosperity.

Wal-Mart having record profits is not good for America, fuck what CNBC says. Wal-mart in the red is good for America.

For jobs.. they will come with the continued water-down of the dollar and the return of low wage manual jobs. But all that is moot if costs of living still rise. Its a snake eat tail situation. In the coming years you will see expansions to manufacturing because of this, cheaper wages and cheap credit for new technology should help them out but this is still far from ideal.

What would be ideal if Obama or Romney had some balls to say things how they really are. But how can we blame them? They are just telling the people what they want to hear. Are politicians only represent the ideals of the people. If American people by in large are morally bankrupt, think they are entitled to and deserve more then they need, and are to impatient then their politicians will be also.

Post: #44

Post: #45

(09-04-2012 11:23 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

Oooooops. Not the first time a politico made a promise they could not keep though.

There will be cuts in this next term regardless of whom is in office. Obama IMO will cut deeper. Many many not share that view but lets not forget it was Clinton whom slashed and burned social programs to dust, to the point where people on food stamps have to survive on like 25$ a week for a small family. So I see no reason Obama, still with Clinton-era creeps huddled around him would not do the same.

As far as reaching deficits totals with those cuts is another story. Austerity and deep cuts never work. Its the easiest thing to do but it just makes bigger deficits.

The easy targets of Govt workers won't be touched again mostly for slash and burn cuts as it would explode unemployment figures

In his first term Obama went looking under the couch covers and bled dry NASA, reduced Govt workers by 2.6%, and did not return Ethanol subsidies. But these were just a drop in the bucket.

What do you guys think will Romney or Obama go after?

Post: #46

Based on this poll, it looks like players are choosing Obama in a landslide, 48/18.

What do all you feminists out there have to say now?

Post: #47

(09-05-2012 12:23 AM)soup Wrote:  Based on this poll, it looks like players are choosing Obama in a landslide, 48/18.

What do all you feminists out there have to say now?

Obama is beta as hell but he is a entertainer and knows how to talk well. Biden would seal the deal on hoes after Obama warms them up... dudes a strait up asshole Alpha.

I think Biden is a lug-nut but I would want to have a scotch with him. He'd be dropping lines like nothing:

"The whores that ran around DC in the 80's.. I tell you man. The place was crawling with them, back then DC was fucking cool man."

"..And then the The prince of Qatar, just drops this huge shit in the meeting suite and just stinks up the place... I'm like dude you ain't that hot now are ya!...'my shit don't stink'.. your shit dooooes stink buddy" ... "He just gets this puzzled look on his face and says he did not understand my English.. I'm like fuck you buddy I heard you order a meal perfectly like 30 mins ago"

*Blackberry rings* "Fuck..This is why I have three phones.. I got this fling in Panama they don't know about, she's 27!.. you fucking believe that! Shes younger then your ass buddy, and she fucks like she's 19!"

"Man Big B is so whipped by his Michelle, like she picks out what ties he wears each day... I tell him to man up and get something on the side but hes to 'faithful and true'" ... "like come on buddy you work in DC, nobody is faithful and true in this fucking town."

Romney is Mormon and by default would count out 80% of women. Ryan is a schlub...Biden for game 1000%

** Edit and now I thought this guy SOUP was talking about Game not the election.. whoooops.

Post: #48

But, if you held a gun to my head, Romney. If for anything a known evil is worse than an unknown evil.

Post: #49

The Economist had an interesting piece last week on how Romney is now against all the views and positions he held while being a governor. While it's obvious that a candidate has to align his platform with the party's when running for president what's happened here is that Romney is just the packaging while other interests are supplying the message.

Post: #50

What do you guys think about this: